NCJ Number
106436
Journal
Missouri Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume: 1986 Dated: (1986) Pages: 29-53
Date Published
1986
Length
25 pages
Annotation
This discussion of dispute resolution highlights cases involving the use of the ocean and coastal resources, considers the disadvantages of litigation for resolving disputes, and develops a taxonomy consisting of 3 alternative processes, 13 goals, and 4 chronological strategies for resolving disputes.
Abstract
Litigation can achieve definite results, but it limits the way that issues are framed, offers only a narrow range of solutions, and does not always use scientific evidence wisely. In contrast, alternative dispute resolution techniques offer a wide range of solutions, let the parties establish their own rules of participation, and allow maximum flexibility. Each of the three basic process tools that can be chosen for alternative dispute resolution represents a type of scientific model and a way of using it. The Ordained Model is a neutral model that the parties often have not developed themselves and that they accept for use at the outset. The second process tool is 'Model-Building,' a technique by which the parties of their representatives come together to construct a model for resolving the conflict. The third process tool is Non-Model Alternative Dispute Resolution. Disputants who use this process intentionally choose not to determine a specific model at the outset. Instead, a neutral, expert adviser consults in confidence with the scientific staffs of the disputing parties to determine what is known and unknown, what is disputed, and what can or cannot be determined within the constraints of time or cost. The adviser issues a report to the parties as their structured negotiations begin. None of these tools can achieve all of the 13 goals of the process. The process tools are not mutually exclusive, however, and the parties must carefully consider the context of their problem when choosing a tool. 33 footnotes.